Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 15, 2012 3:00pm-3:30pm PST

3:00 pm
i can to san francisco about four years ago; i began interning at -- setting a sociology. i was introduced to the homeless population. it help me learn a lot. i did a big project in the demographics. i was introduced to the clear population, the tran population and homeless population in castro and tender loma. i got a good overview of the institutions involved. i was an average worker. most of the majority work was in castro; also work with
3:01 pm
organizations throughout the city that work with homeless population. simultaneously began to intern at a san francisco attorney's office they can services unit; i learn about criminal system and the legal system in general. i learn about the resources and the city, domestic violence, mental health. homeless individuals are victimized a lot. currently i am a shelter advocate; i'm getting to know about housing, organizing, my strongest point about working there in my mind is that work inside the shelters; i work with the management of every city funded shelter. i have a working relationship with them already. it would be a good idea to be in the committee as well as my current position as a shelter
3:02 pm
advocate. >> supervisor kim: next we have keith dennis and andrew mendez. is either of them here today? >> good afternoon. i am andrew mendez. i lived in san francisco for the past four months of the homeless person. pre-vista that i was overseas working and teaching and this is a second language. i returned and found myself destitute. for the past three months i have been involved with the coalition for homelessness, and active in several campaigns for them. i have taken part of the shelter work group. i am a resident at sanctuary, on the j bed.
3:03 pm
and i have attended previous shelter work. shelter monitoring committee meetings. my academic background is in public policy and governance; i would like to see us do better as a city and as a nation; this would be a positive use o f my time. i speak little bit of portuguese and spanish. >> supervisor kim: these expenses well mr. kamura? >> (off mic) >> supervisor kim: at this time we will open up for public comment on this item. if you would like to speak,
3:04 pm
please step up. >> good afternoon supervisors. will -- i am a shelter client advocate. my seat is up on the shelter monitoring committee. i am disappointed that so few -- i was encouraged. a lot of people applied, few people showed up. i am willing to stay on my seat if it is necessary for continuity; i do want to speak on behalf of julia, nick and andrew. nick is my coworker. i think it is very important as he said that the client advocate position be on the committee. we go to the shelters all the time. if the unique perspective.
3:05 pm
julia is very dedicated, hard-working. that seat historically has been difficult to fill because of childcare issues; she has that covered, she assured me of that. she would be great. she speaks spanish. andrew as well. he is a very personable gentleman; he works well with people. he is very dedicated and does a lot of volunteer at the coalition. all of the three candidates would be great. i am disappointed that caroline caselli could not make it today. i think very highly of her. also i did see ms. dennis here. i don't know what happened. i know him peripherally. i have good feelings about him. as well as amanda wright, i
3:06 pm
worked with her for about a year and a half at hamilton family center. thank you very much for your time. >> supervisor kim: mr. daily, thank you so much for being here today. next speaker. >> good commissioners, like a rolling stone. and then we won't be so alone. (singing). i heard you pick a commissioner with a lot trait, she will make a commission make. city was a rolling stone. and don't leave us alone. i heard some cities, -- gonna make it made. and we're going to get commission paid.
3:07 pm
i heard some cities were doing storefront preaching. we will pick it up and we're going to be teaching. the city was the city rolling stone. (singing). you will make it moan. alone. go ahead and hate your neighbor, cheat a city friend. i know you'll make it happen. make it happen in the ned. there won't be tropics blowing come the judgment commission day. you will make it happen when one commissioner comes your way. and someday, we'll be together.
3:08 pm
yes we will (singing) some commission day we'll be together again. yes we will. i know we will. someday we'll be together, shelter. >> supervisor kim: thank you mr. -- is there any other public comment at this time? please step up. >> i'm sorry, one quick comment. [indiscernible] i would like to urge this committee to select as many qualified applicants today as possible. perhaps in december there will not be a quorum. the lacb will be making
3:09 pm
appointments of the next meeting. it is important the committee hit the ground running with a quorum. the members of agree to help in the transition to new members, to the new duties. appoint as many new members as possible today. thank you very much. >> supervisor kim: thank you mr. -- >> i am going to start with -- get a clear image as to what it would take to do an adequate job on this committee. she did not mention anything regarding the time that would be necessary. that probably needs money to get to the shelter because they don't really provide that. the other thing too is that the
3:10 pm
standard of care, they should have read the standards of care and the ordinance creating the shelter monitoring committee. it does not seem like no one has mentioned any other policy and procedure understanding that would, should be required to do the job properly. i do have a problem also with the idea that we give service providers trying to audit or monitor service providers, i think the other thing that we need to look at is, you have a mass exodus of people from the shelter monitoring committee. you're losing like seven members and a staff member.
3:11 pm
somebody needs to look into this. i would also like to hear conversation as to what the people would like to do to create in the shelters. -- produces a big document of services, how to get the proper services into those shelters to help people move on. those are a few of the things that i would like to see. >> supervisor kim: thank you mr. --- so we do have 6 seats before us, five applicants are here today. mr. daly i appreciate your willingness to sit on your seat today; i will suggest that we leave seat 6 open so that
3:12 pm
mr. daly can continue to sit. we have five applicants, qualified. there are quorum issues. i want to fill those as quickly as possible. i am looking at what seats everyone has applied for. jenny parrilla, seat 1. a must be homeless or former homeless. you have also volunteered for the commission on -- women and -- it is good to see that service and you are formerly homeless. seat 2, must be homeless also. isaac langford, here at
3:13 pm
sanctuary and very active, volunteers that several boards including the pride board. for seat 3, must have experience provide a direct service to the homeless, thre community setting, nicholas kimora [sounds like] shelter client advocate. and for seat 4, must be from a different list of candidates nominated to provide behavioral health, andrew mendez, an active member of the shelter working group. seat 5, must be homeless or formerly homeless, selected from the list of candidates, trulia antonia [sounds like]. i believe the put people in seats they qualify for.
3:14 pm
>> that is incorrect supervisor kim. the requirement is your home is or formerly homeless in the past three years, have custody of the minor child, seat 1. jenny parrilla is currently under shelter monitoring committee, appointed by the local homeless cording board. >> supervisor kim: oh. i apologize. >> both -- have spoken to ms. parrilla, asked her not to apply, it would be confusing. ms. wong had an older application. she's already seated by the local homeless cordoning board.
3:15 pm
>> supervisor kim: how can you be on the rules committee agenda if you are on the committee? >> she applied a while ago as did mr. langford. some of the applications have been held by the clerk's office for some time. >> (off mic) (off mic) >> she is on the shelter monitoring committee; she will not seek reappointment for the local homeless coordinating board. >> (off mic) >> okay, appreciate that clarification. i will reorder the seats. julia d'antonio [sounds like], seats 1. for seat 2, jenny parrilla.
3:16 pm
for seat 3, nicholas kimora, having direct services experience. seat 4, to andrew mendez. and seat 5 for isaac langford. >> (off mic) (off mic) >> supervisor kim: i'm not sure it we'll have an applicant for seat 6. >> (off mic) seat 4 is fine. >> supervisor kim: (laughter) city attorney? >> even though he did not apply to seat 4, you can
3:17 pm
appoint him to seat 4 as long he has been with that community health services agency. >> supervisor kim: i think that is clear unless colleagues have other suggestions. we will move forward. those five applicants for those five seats; i will entertain a motion to continue seat six to the call of the chair to see we can get applicants of the next rules committee. do we have a motion to move these applicants seats 1-6, with recommendation, and a motion to continue 6 to the call of the chair. appreciate you being here today and the brevity. i thank you as we mulled through the details of which seat and which applicant.
3:18 pm
please call item 6. >> (reading) >> supervisor kim: thank you. the clerk of the board is here to present. we will let sit the amendments that we have made to the previous board rules. >> thank you chair, members of the committee. this item is after two weeks. supervisor kim, thank you for accepting the amendments at the first november meeting. the amendments are uploaded to the packet; should the committee and the board approved this legislation, january 8 is when the document will become effective. also by january we would expect
3:19 pm
to have finally formatted the document, added a table of contents, the index, and finally at the november 1 meeting i posited that these rules were approximately 150 result; while these rules can be amended at any time by the board i committed to at least four for the next couple of years during the fall to continue to work with the supervisor's office to them and subsequent rules that they felt were necessary. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. any comments from supervisors? supervisor wiener. >> thank you for your work and your office's work putting this together; i know this was an enormous task. we are appreciative. i do have two thoughts in terms of amendments to the members of
3:20 pm
the committee and to ms.- they relate to the process, our committee process. one has to do with the sharing of draft agenda with committee members. if you're not a chair of the committee you learn what is on the agenda for example monday meeting, thursday late in the day. or for a thursday meeting monday late monday. members of the committee should have more of a standard, heads-up for what will be on the agenda with the understanding that things can and do change from time to time. one amendment is 3.61, that
3:21 pm
states that upon request of any member of the committee the committee chair shall share the draft agenda with all committee members at least seven days in advance of the committee meeting so that committee members can be fully prepared for the meeting. this makes a lot of sense, understanding that in the intervening days there can be change. it's a little bit too seat of our pants to have a few days. the other is at the rule 3.35, the calendaring of measures, particularly legislation introduced. it would require that is the author of the measure makes a request in writing to the chair of the committee, schedule a hearing, the committee chair shall schedule a hearing to occur
3:22 pm
within 30 days of the request unless the author agrees to later hearing. it is not occur within 30 days, the author can at roll call for introduction of the next board meeting request that the matter be agendized for the full board, and that will happen in the following board meeting. those are two thoughts and proposals that i have. the fact is that this is not the united states senate; we have a much more democratic board and i think that if someone wants an agenda item, it should be agendized and we should have more time to know what the tentative draft agenda is so the members of the committee can be as prepared as possible. >> supervisor kim: a question to the city attorney. of these amendments substantive?
3:23 pm
>> you can act on these today and forward to the board. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm fine with the new rule, 3.61. i have a question for the clerk on that one. it seems like as a legislative aide who work on the developing of agendas they are readily shared in advance. i have not been a part of how these agendas come up; has there been an issue where board members requested an advance copy of the agenda and was not able to get that? that seems to be to be pretty standard practice to get agendas out when requested. >> supervisor avalos, from time to time there have been problems with supervisor requesting the chair to provide them with versions of the agenda perhaps before it
3:24 pm
is finalized so they could know what is on that document to be prepared for the items that could come up. it is i think the new rules, 3.61, the supervisor indicated that he realizes it would not be a binding agenda. traditionally we don't approve our agendas until approximately 4 days before the hearings to make ready for the posting and publishing deadlines. seven days advanced that could be a significant change from what you see on day seven to the actual hearing. the order of the items, the items themselves. supervisor is aware of that. from time to time supervisors, members of the committee want to know what is on the draft agenda. it is the chairs authority currently not to share that but working with the members,
3:25 pm
many supervisors have. >> thank you. on the second rule, i'm not necessarily comfortable with approving that now. i could support the second one on the page, 3.6.1 i am not comfortable right now supporting rule 3.3.5 >> supervisor kim: i like to ask a question to the clerk. is the author request that the item be heard, what is the process? >> it is required that the 30 day rule be applied on an item in an ordinance.
3:26 pm
that 30 days has to toll before the 3.3.5 rule kicks in. this is not changing substantively what we are currently doing; you are just verifying what the current process is. >> right now my understanding is that it is two consecutive 30 day periods, several months before you could even do instruction of the board to pull something out that has not been heard. this would tighten that up. >> to the original 30 day rule? >> yeah. >> the original 30 day rule, meaning 30 days goes by, and then at the request of the author it can be scheduled as a full board.
3:27 pm
>> right now as i understand the rules, this is for no hearing having occurred as opposed to something sitting in the committee having been heard, if there are no hearings scheduled, it has to be heard at the full board. if it has not been heard the next 30 days, this would change it to - and i'm not trying to violate the 30 day rule - if you make a request say a week or two after the introduction saying that this be calendared within 30 days unless you agree to a longer period. if they don't do so the author has the option to instruct that it be pulled to the full
3:28 pm
board. tightens up the time period. >> madam chair? >> yes? >> the only issue i see with that is that the chair would not have the authority the schedule it during that first 30 days because it is under the 30 day rule. the supervisor would want to chair to schedule it right away, meaning when they could start scheduling it. it does minimize the chair's authority to schedule items in their time frame, and the consideration of al l they have going on. >> supervisor kim: i don't think that it is political to do so, is out of logistical issues. for example land-use has a lot of items; sometimes i like to spread out over time. i would
3:29 pm
not like to take that discretion away. i would like to know that after the 30 day hold, the author of a measure can they request if they feel that it is not being heard. we never want items to never get scheduled for those reasons. and have to support 3.6.1 as well; supervisor avalos, i don't think it hurts to share draft agendas 7 days in advance. >> i'm happy to go 1 for 2. >> i like to open this for comment at this time. >> i might nee